I wonder if you could analyze internet discussions for an effect.

  • conicalscientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    Tech companies hire psychologists to behavior modify us to be engagement zombies. That alone must have done a number on intelligence.

  • curiousPJ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    Bored people can now tune into (source of entertainment) instead of learning.

    I don’t think the capacity for intelligence has dropped significantly, rather we as a society dedicate our time differently.

  • burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    is anyone here talking about the systematic dismantling of public education and starving of teachers and children in terms of learning resources and actual food

    also i again have to complain about Idiocracy, the comedy film that suggests intelligent rich people will solve our problems and stupid poor people will doom society, where in reality you have incredibly wealthy and also incurious, unintelligent ghouls hoarding generational wealth, making it a top priority to have tons of children in order to make their ‘superior’ genes take over.

    • TheObviousSolution@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      It’s not, it’s not having to do the math or the remembering. The brain is a muscle, when you have your phone doing all the hard work it doesn’t need to be as buff. LLMs will worsen this problem even more. Microplastics? Maybe single digit consequences.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Causes :
    long covid ?
    micro plastics ?
    screen time ?
    sedentarism ?
    fast food ?
    lack of sleep ?
    other ?

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Lead was a much bigger problem in the 1970 when it was in road vehicles fuels. But now its only use in some small plane fuels. There is also much less use of lead paint and lead in water pipe systems.
        N.B. : Study in that article is about decline from 2010 until today in 15-year-olds.

    • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      In my personal observations less intelligent people tend to have more children.
      Therefore population IQ drifts towards bottom.

      I suspect that’s because they do not fully understand all their future struggles and fates of their children in the world, fucked up by climate crisis and resource scarcity.

      • echolalia@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        This is the plot to a fictional movie. Intelligence is a factor of many things, and most of those factors are not genetic.

        Your observation seems close to the opinions of old school eugenicists. “The wrong people are having children”.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      idiocracy intro?

      (IE the theory it pushed was in short, smart people do family planning, try to wait for everything to be perfect… and forget to get around to having kids).

      Meanwhile on the less intelligent spectrum. Shit I’m pregnant again!!!.. Oh and I got the girl in the trailer next door pregnant.

      Or for a real world example… look at Lauren Boebert, the 35 year old grandmother in congress.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Yes absolutely (and i was afraid to say it out loud).
        But now, we have also to explain why it did not so much apply in the past millennias … or tens of past millenias. (again, i am afraid to say it … don’t want a shitstorm)

        • TheFogan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          The massive lowering of the bar of “good enough to stay alive”. Life expectancy was consistantly in the 30s up until the 1870s. Simply having kids was life threatening… doing so while malnourished even more so.

          Natural selection favors traits that increase the odds of having offspring, as well as those that avoid death before having offspring. Avoiding death is a lot easier than it used to be.

  • drascus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Its a lot of work but you have to constantly push. I am 42, but I read a few dozen books a year, I’m constantly learning new languages, new instruments, I write short stories for fun, do creative projects, and meditate. I still feel really sharp but I’m throwing down everyday.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    I can believe it. Physical inactivity, less creative play for children, distraction all the time.

    Mind you, in some ways I don’t buy it - the two of my kids who were very academically motivated both learned much more in school than I did (I went during a conservative time when the schools were doing “back to basics” which didn’t help, but simple research before the Internet was so difficult that I didn’t have access to as much as they did, it took more effort to learn less) and those two are whip-smart. So I think the potential to be smart is higher now. Also maybe we have included more people in the measurements now that it’s easier to get the data.

    But physical inactivity does harm brain health, plastic probably does, the dumbing down again in the schools here (is this some 40-50 year cycle?) certainly does. I do, like @drascus@sh.itjust.works work at maintaining my thinking by trying to learn new things, not just get good at what I am good at already; and do a lot to maintain physical health, meditate, and try to guard my sleep as much as possible within the context of a normal life.

    • SoupBrick@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Unfortunately, that movie’s main message was about eugenics. I am not arguing that anti-intellectualism is not spreading like a cancer, but that movie is not the best thing to reference.

      • Probius@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        I don’t think it ever actually promoted eugenics. It just explored the natural consequences of two facts in a comedic way:

        • Intelligence has a hereditary component to it.
        • Stupid people have more kids.

        It never tries to push any eugenics-based agenda. It would have if they tried to say that dumb people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, but they never went anywhere near that.